Pragash Mohanarajah

Hi, **Disclaimer** I am not a Supabase developer or contributor, but here are my thoughts. I would think that this might have been deliberate, since it would be helpful for the users. Often, users will use the same email account for multiple purposes, e.g. work, school, personal projects etc. Therefore, creating organisations amongst the onboarding process implicitly ensures that they can keep their work more organised. While this does cause friction and slow down the process overall, the trade-off for users is that they are going to be entrusting this cloud platform to keep their data safe for a long period of time. Therefore, most users (hobbyists, enterprise etc.) will be willing to spend a couple extra minutes to ensure that everything is set up correctly. From Supabase's point of view, having the databases named in an unclear manner, i.e. untagged and de-sensitised, will make it harder for Supabase to recover your data, if it did go missing for whatever reason. Adding more than one "tag" is a helpful and reliable indicator when trying to allocate fragments of data back to the users in an emergency. Moreover, Supabase will already have the internal functionality with Foreign Key Relationships and strong CLS & RLS policies, marking database allocations to organisations. Creating standalone databases will often mean that they need to allow `null` or 0 values in this linking column, which opens the door to higher vulnerabilities, when databases are not linked correctly. Thank you very much for your question. I hope I've answered your query. P.S. Would you mind marking this response as the answer to this discussion point, if you believe this is a thorough response. If not, I'd be happy to clarify further.